Salvation by faith and works : intellectually ridiculous?

I've laid mine out in Message 13 and many, many others for all to see.If you feel trying to support your position is off topic, fine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don’t get why you think its ridiculous lunacy. The line is gonna hafta be drawn somewhere and some people are gonna be closer to the line, on either side, than others. So what? What’s the big deal?The alternative, salvation by faith alone, seems more ridiculous and lunatic to me. I’d say that the line is not that fine. I think that an additional 0.1 sec of lust is negligible compared to the whole picture, and would have no affect on your salvation. This just moves the goalposts, but I wanted to raise the point that salvation by works is not that finely tuned IMO. I think the very last occupant to earn Hell and the person who just scrapes into Heaven would have differences that are more noticeable than 0.1 sec of lust. How different I haven’t really thought of yet,Another thing I think of is that maybe Heaven and Hell are more of an analogue quality, as opposed to the digitized either/or scenario you’ve described. Perhaps the better your works are, the better your heavenly experience will be and the last occupant of hell doesn’t have it as bad as the hitlers do (also the one who scrapes into heaven wouldn’t have it as good as the mother teresas do). This way, the difference of 0.1 sec of lust wouldn’t be noticable in the context of how good, or bad, those afterlife’s would be.Whadaya think?

Not that I care either way, but since when did you get to tell God what was fair?If God wants to send this person to heaven and that person to hell for some gnat's whisker of a difference, surely it's up to him? Do you think he's going to be bound by some man-made contract?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Paul, Read the sub-topic at the start of this post. Mystery.Moses was up on a mountain one day and he sees a bush burning but not being consumed. How can this be. Curious, he goes to look closer only to have God speak to him. He is told not to come nearer and to remove his sandles for he is standing on holy ground. Moses reponse is to fall flat on his face.In Romans 9 Paul is dealing with the doctrine of pre-destination. Election. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Stuff that puts sentimental God-is-only-love view through the wringer. Paul lashes those who will approach with intellectually sandled feet, areas of Gods working that he has chosed not to reveal. Although Paul is reaching an end of his brilliant exposition as to the reasons-for and mechanisms-of salvation, he 'defends' Gods right to be God. To have black boxes in the otherwise revealed mechanism.Me? I fall flat on my face when approaching such things. I have no intellectual difficulty with it for I trust him when he says that he wants that none should perish. How he achieves that whilst pre-destining I do not know. But knowing God, I know he is well able.As to your (sandle-shod ) arguments: Paul in Romans 9 points out that if God had arbitrarily chosen some for salvation and some for damnation - simply so that those saved could better appreciate his mercy unto them - then that would be his perogative. We're only clay moulded by a potter. We forget that and demand what we have no right to. He is not made unjust by our definition of just.As to why go out and tell others? Because he says so. Its called obedience. And he equips you with anguish as a spur.Faith alone IS ludicrous. God gives salvation for free? Prior to salvation and open spiritual eyes it can only end in intellectual insult. 1 Cor 2:14 explains it wellThe thread? Self-determined-salvation: how to deal with the OP's logical conclusion and intellectual insult.

I couldn't agree with you more JM. I don't say anything about it being fair - I said it was intellectually insulting. Just like faith alone is might be to an unsaved person. I acknowledge mystery in the mechanism of faith alone.I was just wondering was the scenario posed that which is envisaged by self-determined salvationists. And if not - what is.

Simply calling it a mystery doesn't change the issue. Sorry, but simply because you use the word "mystery" doesn't mean that we should exempt your view from critical examination. THAT is an intellectual insult.Indeed since you could equally well defend the view you argue against with the same "argument", it appears that this entire thread is founded on a double standard.

iano Hallucination? A propensity to lie to others? A need to bolster his reputation as the leader? He was alone when it happened and all correspondence with God was also when on his own. It may well have been a ruse intended to secure a place of authority that he would not have by dint of leadership.Many possibilities exist that are quite mundane and ordinary and,quite frankly, human. Like the old adage says "when you hear the sound of hooves think of horses before zebras."

Thank God someone is talking about self-determined salvation at last is what I think.To deal with your last point first. My own take is that Hell and Heaven are both digital and analogue (for God created both). Digital in the sense that there is a definite line between the environments of heaven and hell. I can't see how anyone could extract any impression from the biblical view on hell that it is a place to be avoided at all costs (if you'll forgive the salvation by works sounding lapse). Similarily I cannot see how anyone could extract the impression that heaven is anything but exquisite compared to the blend of hell/heaven that is life on earth. "To know God and to enjoy him forever"Having said that I do think that our works matter. Not for salvation but for the extent of reward/punishment that a person will experience. Analogue in that internal sense. Digital in the overall sense I read somewhere that 60 billion people are estimated to have lived and died thus far. At currect rates another 6 billion are added every 70 years or so to that figure. "0.1 seconds lust" was I thought, a rather generous separation. Wherever you decide the divide might lay it would appear that inserting a cigarette paper between the two will entail some crumpling and creasing. ALthough God would be able, with his perfect weighing scales, to do so without problems.But does it not seem slightly lunatic to suppose that that 0.1 second lust (or some such divide) should result in such reward/punishment (given a (biblically more reasonable) digalous model of heaven/hell as opposed to a seamless -infinity to +infinity model with the switchover at zero) A study in scriptures view on Hell left me depressed for two weeks - even though I know I'm not going there. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy - had I got one. To me too. I causes me to fall flat on my face at timesBTW CS: any brief mechanism as to such a salvation? I thought RC meant guaranteed purgatory for RC's then heaven unless a mortaller had been committed? The rest are doomed?

I wasn't planning to. However the two sides of the coin are pretty tightly entangled in the arguments. It's difficult to talk about just one side without comparrissons between both. Much as it would intrigue me to get into the validity of claims that there actually are God-made Christians, that would be O/T for this thread so I will refrain from that for now.
Assuming that there is such a thing, then what would be the criteria for God to choose who to make into a Christian?
Again there would be a fine line which people could fall extremely close to either side of. After the conversion there could be a massive difference but prior to it, not much I think.

Hi SLThe thread has the implicit notion that there is such thing as God and that folk will end up in either heaven or hell. This is not a "does God exist thread"

The two have such a gulf between them that one might draw comparisons. Some other time: bogged down threads are as easy as salvation by faith alone (for the recipient of course - not for the ransom payer) No one knows. A presumption that it must be deeds is a natural one but there is no need for it to be so. That salvation could be completely free just bends our work-orientated heads. As Paul points out in Romans, God could simply have created some for destruction so that those whom he destined to be saved would greater appreciate his mercy. And who could argue with him or call him unjust (he who defines justness)We're just potter clay. We just forget that factThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Apr-2006 05:48 PM

You are kidding. Right?
If I honestly believed that there was a God and that he behaved in this kind of fashion then I would actively side against him from choice, as I would much rather be tortured in Hell than be forced to remain in the company of such a hypocritical, foul being as this. Again this is O/T for your thread but I just find it so hard to understand your position on this And what would you have me do? Follow his example?It seems to me that the only way that a genuinely good God would act is to judge people by their deeds alone. Maybe this judgement could take place by a mechanism where God himself chooses which humans are to be saved. All I am saying is that I don't see any way to get away from some arbitrary line in the sand, either way you cut it.

Hi Iano,I find it strange that you of all people are examining the logic of God's decisions regarding salvation.
near every discussion I've been in with you ends up with a hand-waving statement along the lines of 'We can't hope to understand how god works using our puny human minds'Yet, here you are, using you human mind to measure the lunacy/sense of salvation by faith/works.wrt salvation by faith: so.. what If I believed that jesus was the son of God, rose from the dead, but had my doubts about the other miracles? where would I stand on faith?wrt to salvation by works
If salvation by works is true, I'm sure you would concede that God is fully able to discern who is eligible, whether it be an analogue or a digital crossover. Trying to make sense of it using your earthly abilities is surely sensless? Indeed..surely your own beliefs require that you do not even attempt to understand how god makes such a decision? Is that not the direction that A&E went? trying to understand and hence be like God?If you are going to apply human measures of sense/lunacy, salvation by works is the only 'sensible' option,But then again, if you are going to apply human measures of sense/lunacy here you need to question a lot more than entry requirements to heaven

I have already said that aspects of faith alone (for the unbeliever) are an intellectual 'insult'. This, because they don't allow for man-sized intellectual resolution. You presume all aspects of Gods workings should be intellectually resolvable but haven't told me why this should be so. The OP didn't include mention of examining the faith only viewpoint so I don't feel compelled to have to answer. If you have a question however I will endeavor to answer as best I can.When it comes to "what criteria does God use to chose" I say that I don't know - which doesn't automatically mean it will be our behaviour which influences things. Or even necessarily that there are us-dependant criteria at all. This latter on the basis of the paradox when trying to reconcile his pre-destining people to be saved vs his wanting that none should perish. Its a paradox I can't (nor feel a need) to resolve.Suffice to say, a person who knows God will have a different approach to the black box than one who doesn't. The latter can only retire with an offended intellect. The former tend to fall on their face in wonder at the sheer size of their Father.

Hi Crevo,What I am asking of those who hold to self-determined salvation is how to they reconcile the logical conclusion posed. How they respond to that is what is of interest. If one said: it is a mystery then fine, the thread will move to look at the consequences of that - if any.I don't hold that self-determined salvation is of God so there is nothing wrong with looking at an apparently ludicrous aspect of it from my perspective. If such an adherant says its holy ground for them - "it just is that way" then fine. If you were a Christian it wouldn't affect your destination no matter what denomination or doctrine you held to. But I would ask how one believing the former would have difficulty with the latter. For another time: when faith only is under discussion I have already conceded such. God could discern. But generally, works unto salvation can be taken as greater adherance to Gods will and works unto damnation lesser adherance to Gods will. Thus whilst I cannot discern the dividing line myself I am being told by the adherants what is being measured. And such measurement throws up the logical conclusion in the OP: the difference between the last in heaven and first in hell will be some relatively trival difference in works. A "fraction of a sin" as it werre - if you take the amounts of people who will be measuredUnless someone has some other explanation - an offer extended in the OP